From: tgpedersen
Message: 64710
Date: 2009-08-12
> > ****GK: Inismei ruled ca. 69/70-> ca. 85. Of Aorsan descent,http://tinyurl.com/ljby9w
> > though by that time they had fully fused with the Satarchi
> > Scythians and were called either "Scythians" or "Tauroscythians".
> > The ruling elite: "Spali". Still bore that name when the Goths
> > invaded in the 240's Cf. Jordanes.****
> >
> >
> > The tamgas of both rulers are also present on the objects from
> > the rich burial in the barrow "Kashava Drahana" in Bulgaria 36.
> >
> > *****GK: Extremely interesting.****
> >
> >
> > Of especial interest in this complex is the long sword of
> > distinctly oriental provenance. The suspension loops of its
> > scabbard are made of nephrite in the style of the Chinese Han
> > dynasty. As for the other decorative details of the scabbard,
> > they are executed in the turquoise-golden Sarmatian animal style,
> > though, instead of turquoise, green glass was used.
> >
> > ****GK: This sounds a lot like the polychrome art introduced to
> > the West by the late Sarmatians (esp. the Alans), and later
> > borrowed by the Goths and others.****
> >
> >
> > The buried man had worn a Roman bronze helmet-mask and armour,
> > including trousers with metal plates of a Sarmatian armoured
> > cavalry warrior. The burial was dated to the "mid-first century
> > AD", but a more likely date is the second half of that century.
> > It is hard to say whether this set of weapons got into Thracia
> > during the Roxolanian raid of 69 AD, in the course of the raid of
> > Platinus Silvanus against the Sarmatians of king Farzoi, or by
> > some other means.
> >
> >
> > ****GK: And there is nothing about the structure of the tomb?****
>
> No. But since Pes^ka and Tejral compares Mus^ov with Vize and
> C^atalka, does the description of that in Mus^ov help?
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64695
>
>
> > 36. Buyukliyev Kh.
> > Trakijskijat mogilen nekropol pri Chatalka,
> > Starozagorskij okrug. -
> > Razkopki i pruchvanija.
> > 1986, kn. 16.'
> >
> > Apparently the "Kashava Drahana" barrow (note 36) is the C^atalka
> > site mentioned in another post.
>
> That means the implicit assignation to Thracians by Pes^ka and
> Tejral
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64695
> of Vize and C^atalka should be replaced by Sarmatians.
> Now they are comparing the royal tomb in Mus^ov, Moravia to those,
> does that mean we should consider that one too as having a
> Sarmatian connection?
>